General Tag Discussion

@Michaelsety  
If it’s a screencap, drawn in the same style, or merch directly related to eqg, you tag eqg. Beyond that I’m not sure myself, now.

@Archonix  
Yeah, me too.
 
BTW, If human in Pony coloring is not EQG, will Human Coloration be EQG as a tag?

Remember when I said we should ask the artist, and people just started dissing their art style instead?
 
 
 
 

@TexasUberAlles  
>>2116105t (merged)
 
This is Equestria Girls too, as the artist stated, but still the tag is removed for no reason.

These images are all eqg under the definition practically everyone has been using for half a decade.

I am so confused now. I remember it being so easy before skin tone became such a divisive thing, with humanized and dark and light tones being tagged …
 
I keep asking myself, what are people searching for, or filtering?
 
If images like the above are EQG, then that makes everything on that side of the franchise easy to filter or find - regardless of the skin tones the artist used. People who don’t want to see characters from that sub-franchise won’t, unless they are in an Equestria setting, episode, or short.
 
But if the tone of the skin matters over the franchise/sub-franchise, then that gets tricky, like it is now.
 
Sunset Shimmer is kind of a poster child for this - she’s an Equestrian Girls character. So it seems like she should be tagged EQG unless the image is from her appearance in an MLP episode or short, whether she’s a pony or a human or humanized or human-colored or anthro or EQG-styles, she’s an EQG character.
 
But it seems the EGQ is also being used to indicate the style of the drawing, not the sub-/franchise the characters or scene are from.
 
So is EQG simply being used in too many ways?
 
Because the category of the tag is “Official Content”, and it seems that it’s getting used to sort out how closely artists are on model, to the point that EQG characters are “dropping out” of the EQG tag if their colors are too pastel, or there are characters in the scene with human skin tones.
 
So, for me, if the source of the characters is from the EQG world, then that’s an EQG image.
 
That would put the focus back on what we mean by the “humanized” tag, and the difference between “humanized” Rainbow Dash the pony, and “Humanized” Rainbow Dash the EQG. Maybe it’s as simple as saying that EQG Rainbow Dash may be Human Colored, but pony Rainbow Dash might be Humanized - but either way at that point you’re so far off model that it’s more about tagging the source of the artist’s inspiration than the actual results.
 
But if EQG dropped the expectation that characters will be on model for coloration, at least people could search and filter using the EQG tag again. And right now from the reports and PMs I’ve been working on, that seems to be where all the pain is.

@TexasUberAlles  
You misspelled “discussing” there, champ.
 
 
@The Frowning Pony  
I’ve been mostly out of the loop on this (for obvious reasons), so I have no idea what’s actually going on, or when the actual tag definition changed. Did it change? Have I switched universes again?

@Derpy Whooves  
The tag has referred to both the style and characters from it since its beginning. It’s important to note that Rainbow Dash in EqG-land is not the same character as Rainbow Dash in FiM-land, same as Twilight Sparkle and Sci-Twi are different characters.
 
A lot of these artists are specifically drawing EqG characters, and their style is just as valid for “equestria girls” characters as longinius’ style is for FiM ponies.
 
A tagging change of this magnitude merits a lot more discussion, and any change would need an actual plan and proper prioritization vs other large tag projects (pony, solo, pegasus, etc,).

@The Smiling Pony  
Yeah, I agree. I’m glad this got noticed and talked about, and I feel a little better about being confused by all of it. I’ll look through the reports I worked on today to see if any of those tag changes need to be reversed.

@The Smiling Pony  
There is no tagging change.  
Pony skin toned humanizations have been a thing long before equestria girls ever existed.

I don’t know the specifics of how we used to tag EqG, but I can just about guarantee that it didn’t have a specific concrete idea.  
In general, we have a tendency to tag a franchise name on characters from the franchise, like Pokemon for Pikachu, but we don’t do this for pony, and when someone makes a humanized Rarity that could humanized be from FiM, EqG, or IDW, I’m not sure it makes much sense to tag any of the three.  
The IDW tag as far as I know is used for the comics themselves, and characters/ideas unique to them, regardless of using comic style (for when people imitate the style, there’s “I can’t believe it’s not IDW” of course), which is very similar to how we tag episodes/movie with regards to characters (tag it for their initial appearance mainly as a spoiler thing, but stop tagging after later ones, unless the way they appear is unique, I think). The EqG tag I would expect to operate the same way, but then it gets very tricky because it’s not like pony-colored Rarity is unique to EqG, and to my knowledge we normally tag it on anything even vaguely resembling the style, in part because of “equestria girls-ified” existing.

@Zeb  
Yes, they were, but after EqG a fair amount of such images were specifically drawing characters from EqG and not characters from FiM. When an artist is constantly drawing SciTwi, Sunset Shimmer, or has a hundred rarijack images based around the characters’ interactions from EqG, I think it’d be safe to say that their intent wasn’t to draw humanized ponies, but EqG characters.
 
Yes, it’s a confusing tag because it carries two meanings and the franchise/lore situation is shit, but if we’re going to make it so images of EqG characters no longer get the ‘equestria girls’ tag because the style isn’t the show’s or there’s not a “very clear” reference to it, then that’s going to affect thousand of images; we’d need new tags and a decent definition for them and plan on how to apply them.

I was thinking about tag applejack's mom being an alias to pear butter, but I noticed pre-Perfect Pear (fan-made) pics of AJ’s mom…

@Panko Pai  
There’s a similar thing going on with applejack’s dad. Personally, I think that a way of looking up fanmade Apple parents separately from their canon selves might be useful.

@Frustration in Excelsis  
Like Rainbow Blaze and Bow Hothoof? As Rainbow Dad has been aliased to the former.

@Zeb  
You mean, pony-colored tones humanization is made before 2013?

@Michaelsety  

 
Yes

With regard to crotchboobs, do images that only have nipples and no actual “breasts in the crotch area” still warrant this tag?
 

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

(EXPLICIT)

@Damaged  
Yes.

@Dragonpone  
May want to edit the tag’s description to cover that then. At the moment it literally just says “breasts in the crotch area” and nothing more.

@Damaged
 
@Dragonpone
 
Please use teats for that (implies crotchboobs).

@cheezedoodle  
Got it. For ones like this where there’s no actual crotchboobs, should I then remove the implied crotchboobs tag?

@Damaged  
That’s the underpinning tag, it’s still technically correct in the way a girl with a flat chest still has breasts.

@Background Pony #E7D7  
I still hate the default main tag for pony udders being ‘crotchboobs’ as I utterly despise how it sounds.
 
But my opinion means little as I don’t really care about any kinds of udders and people like it, so… Just giving an opinion.
 
Edit: I will say it is very unintuitive.

@LightningBolt  
I mean, it could be aliased to something sane and not break the everything, right?
 
@Background Pony #E7D7  
Right, but ponies != humans.
 
Basically, It’d be nice if there was a way to differentiate between images like the above and ones where someone has literally glued human-style boobs on a pony’s underside. At present I can’t see a way to differentiate the two other than one being a realistic depiction of what a pony would likely have and the other being a horny kid’s daydream.